Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 99-4592
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Paul Lester Castner appeals his conviction for making false declarations to a grand jury in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. 1623(a) (West
1994 & Supp. 1999). Castner was subpoenaed to testify before a
grand jury investigating a fire that killed five people, including Castner's three children. Castner testified that he received specific information about the locations in which gasoline was poured and
descriptions of who started the fire from conversations with his children after their deaths. Castner denied receiving the information from
Ricky Brown, David Brown, or Barbara Brown. Castner was convicted and sentenced to 60 months imprisonment.
On appeal, Castner contends that he received the information in a
conversation held jointly with Ricky, David and Barbara Brown,
rather than any one of them individually, and therefore was entitled
to a jury instruction that a perjury conviction cannot be based on
answers that were literally true. See Bronston v. United States, 409
U.S. 352, 362 (1973).
The decision of whether or not to give a particular jury instruction
is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Whittington,
26 F.3d 456, 462 (4th Cir. 1994). A defendant is entitled to a jury
instruction on any defense which has an evidentiary foundation and
accurately states the law. See United States v. Sloley, 19 F.3d 149,
153 (4th Cir. 1994).
We find that Castner is not entitled to a Bronston instruction
because his statements to the grand jury were not literally true. After
Castner testified that he had received information about the arson
from his deceased children, the examiner asked Castner whether he
had received the information from "somebody else . . . like Ricky or
David themselves." Castner replied that he had not. A question must
be considered in its context and given its common sense meaning. See
United States v. Portac, Inc., 869 F.2d 1288, 1296 (9th Cir. 1988).
The examiner's question was not limited to Ricky or David; rather,
his question asked if the information could have come from someone
other than Castner's children. The examiner's question was broad
2